WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1906. THE TRANSVAAL CONSTITUTION.

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 58, 6 September 1905, Page 6

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1906. THE TRANSVAAL CONSTITUTION.

V The debate on tho Transvaal Constitution which took place in tho House of 1 Commons on the Colonial Office vote in Committee of Supply on 27th July, and is very fully reported in The Times of the following day, appears from that report to have been a valuablo contribution to the discussion of an exceptionally difficult subject. The excellent tono of the debate and its freedom from personal and party recriminations', notwithstanding that the decision of tho Government to carry on. in spite of their defeat had only been announced two or three days before, weie no doubt duo to a proper sense of the gravity and Complexity of the problem under consideration. Speaking towards the end of the debate, and immediately afteVHho Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chamberlain said that "before the interposition of the fight hon. gentleman, the debate was conducted without a spark of political or party feeling 6n either tide ; " and if we add Mr. Chamberlain's own name to that of Sir Henry Campbell' , Bannexman*. we shall have exhausted the

list of offenders against the salutary rule to which' be refers. The debate was opened by Mr. Sidney Buxton, whose chief complaint was that instead of responsible government the Imperial authorities were merely giving representative institutions to the Transvaal. He argued that this was a, case in which the full measure of self-government would be attended with less danger than a limited one, on the ground that the friction that must be generated between an Executive which had power without .responsibility and a Parliament endowed with responsibility without power would seriously hamper the working of the Constitution, and instead of preparing the way for the grant of wider powers was therefore likely to postpone Jit. In this view the half is more dangerous than the whole, and fullblown responsible government would make for peace, while 'restrictions and safeguards would provide not only safety I but irritation. Sir Robert Reid, who waa Attorney' General in the last Liberal Administration, spoke in a sonlewhat similar vein of the anomalies of a Parliament which was empowered to discuss grievances^ but not to provide remedies. "The salaries of all the servants of the State," he oaid, "were withdrawn from the Assembly, and the Assembly could not remove a single memb3r of the Administration. That was a very serious matter. In the second place, the whole of the intercolonial council was taken away from them. That meant that the payment of the constabulary was withdrawn from the Assembly, and also the revenue 'and expenditure of the railways. In ddttion, the Governor could not assent to any law relating either to Asiatics or natives without referring it Home; and there was an express power reserved for the King in Council, notwithstanding the granb ot this quasi-Constitution, to pass any law he thought fit overruling this Legislative Assembly." Tho diametrically opposite view was taken by Mr. Chamberlain, who not only dissented from the Liberal contention that the Government had not gone far enough, but considered that they had even gone too far. He certainly disposed conclusively of Sir Robert Reid's suggestion that there was nothing to choose between the old form of tho government and the new one. "Why, under the new Constitution, the representatives will have the power of tho purse," said Mr. Chamberlain. "If the Boers secure a representation in accordance with their numbers, and jf even two or three of the British representatives who may be returned in accordance with their numbers join with them, they will have absolute power over Civil Supply, save in regard to some matters which are reserved. There is no doubt, therefore, that the power to be given to the population of tho Transvaal is '(considerable." It is indeed a considerable power,-and the concession of it involves a considerable risk, for, as he points out, there can be no steps backward in these matters : "The risk lies in this — you may give a Constitution to-mor-row, but having given it, it is almost impossible to take it away. If there should be a mistake, you cannot go back." With a frankness which shocked tho Leader of the Opposition the Secretary of State for tho Colonies had pointed out the risks of the position very clearly, though he appeared to regard them as almost entirely obviated by the restrictions imposed in the new Constitution. "It would not be in human nature," he said, "and it was really preposterous to neglect the fact, if the Boers wero to entertain a very cordial feeling towards the Government of this country at the present moment. When, therefore, they got a difference of race, a recent war, and the feelings which naturally resulted from such a war, were those the conditions and was that the soil in which they ought to plant a novel and hazardous experiment?. . ■ Had it been realised what responsible government meant! It meant a struggl* for the Treasury bench. It meant party government, and one of two parties wish.ing to retain or regain power. Surely, were this party struggle to be facilitated by the grant of responsible government such as gentlemen opposite desired, the result would inevitably be a political vendetta which would deepen, emphasise, and stereotype the racial difference* which existed." Sir Henry Campbell-Banner-man was greatly exercised over this plainness of speoch, dhd urged that "trusting the people" was the sovereign remedy for Boer disaffection, but he Was better employed in pointing out that the vendetta would have ample scope under the Constitution proposed, and in citing from Lord Durham s famous report on Canada a strikingly apt passage on the absurdity of imagining "that representation and irresponsible government could be successfully combined." In replying -to this argument Mr. Chamberlain urged that "if you give full responsible government to the Transvaal would bo absolutely useless and most dangerous or mischievous to interfere, either by speeches or action in this House, with their treatment of the native population, Chinese labour, or any other question on which you hold strong opinions, but as to which they differ from you." This is very nicely put, but doss it not really mean that tho Chinamen are to bo kept in the country by the Imperial Government because a 'free local Parliament, if it had the power, might expel thcrrf? It is notorious that one lesson for the capitalists' preference for Chinamen is that the white labourer would haye a vote which would make him a nuisance, and }he Boer vote must remain in the acsendant as long as the voteloss Chinaman is allowed to usurp tho placo of tho free Britisher. Every constitutional experiment must be fraught with the gravest danger as long as by these unnatural conditions the dominant" race is prevented from attaining^ to a numerical preponderant in the country. m ' A DEGRADING FARCE. The debate on the Premier's land resolutions occupied practically the whole time of the House of Representatives yesterday, and also a little of ite attention. Never has the present House failed moTo lamentably to rise to the dignity of a great occasion than during t-his debate— ft fact for which the ' Premier's timid and tricky trifling with the •whole question is largely responsible. Tho Opposition had again & good denl to say on this aspect of the business, and, what was still more to t'he point, the Premier had also to 'lUteii to a rebuke from one of his own followers, the- member for Hawora, on tho "levity" with whkh ho liad approached a subject really deserving of the most serious consideration. It is unfortunate Mx. Major's attitude was not generally imitated on l«he Government side of t'ho House, and that a majority of (ho parly has only too faithfully taken up the keynote wt by the Premier. Mr. Dutihie's condemnation of these members as degrading -a great subject by their hilarity was thoroughly well deserved, and tho indecency asHumes a particularly gross appearance when ono Tcmembers tnat the members indulging in it are the same men who have cheerfully voted £15,000 of the country'e money for the expenses of an «n■'quiry which they now deem beneath their notice. We trust that the action of these mon will be duly noted by their respective constituents. In other respects, there was little in yesterday's debate to call for comment. The freehold Tecoived a strong support from several leading Opposition speakers as well ac from uonio of tho Goyernmeflt party,-

and <the case for the leasehold waa left to the slender advocacy of the Commissioner of Customs and of one private member who ds never taken seriously enough to carry any weight. The peo-ple-'B cause is indeed in grievous peril when almost the only speakers who are consistently serious are tho&a who stand for the dissipation of all that is left of the public estate, and though we are •so accustomed to Mr. Seddon'e mental agility that we are Jiot particularly disturbed -by his tergiversation in the present instance, we deeply deplore that his contemplated betrayal of the case of which 'he ia the natural guardian should be undertaken with a. parade of irresponEitflo levity which strikes a heavy blow at the dignity and decency of Parliament by degrading the most momentous of debates to the devel of a faTce.